Talk:Ruggero Santilli

Santilli's Lie-admissible treatments of Irreversible systems

Allow me to report that I personally received at my lab rather serious criticisms against "us" (or "you" if you elected to cut me out editing against Wiki rules) on "our" ("your") removing from Santilli's article the quotation of his initiation in the 1960s with papers at the SIF/IPS of the Lie-admissible treatment of irreversible processes as a covering of the usual Lie treatments of the usual reversible processes. The grounds of the criticisms are: A) these Lie-admissible formulations are the best known for the field; B) they are much needed to start, after one century of reversible theories, quantitative studies of combustion and energy releasing processes; C) the opposition of "our" ("your") friends Weinberg-Glashow-Coleman at Harvard in the late 1970s against these studies is well know world wide from Il Grande Grido; D) everybody also knows, let's stop again this fuss at least for important aspects, that the opposition at Harvard by "our" ("your") friends was due to the fact that Lie-admissibility implies the opposed surpassing Einstein's theories by quite a lot; E) the need for basic advances in irreversibility is set by just looking at what's happening in the environment. Thus, the grounds of the criticism are that, by trashing out Santilli's 1960s papers published at the SIF/IPS "we" ("you") confirm the opposition to these studies by Weinberg-Glashow-Coleman of three decades ago by therefore providing a huge credit to scientificethics(dot)org. You know, there comes a point in life when realities have to be faced to avoid self-destruction and unjustifiable abuses such as this one cause serious damages you better take into consideration because, after all, you seem to forget or do not care that the image America is at stake here. Zkurcko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkurko (talk • contribs) 14:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The image of America? Wikipedia is a privately owned website, owned by a non-profit foundation. The editors are found in countries all over the world. it has no connection with either the US government or its agencies. In any event, almost nothing in the rest of your post has any value for us; you seem to be arguing about the actual physics involved, and/or something about the personalities. This is the wrong website for that. All we do here on Wikipedia is take what reliable sources say, summarize them, and put them into a coherent article. This is not the place to try to either promote or denigrate someone's theories (and, in fact, I can't even tell which one you're doing). Qwyrxian (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, thanks for the clarifications. If truly implemented, they will trash out all criticisms in Wiki's favor, To test your Foundation, I am working to add a short section to Santilli's article entitled "Lie-admissible formulations" without equations and with the quotation of Santilli's paper at the SIF?IPS of the 1960s, his latest also at the SIP/IPS of 2006 and the proceedings of the 2011 Nepal Conference. In accordance with Wiki rules, I "request" that this section is not abusively trashed out, but editing be discussed in these comments without, this time, the usual abuses. Zkurko November 26, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkurko (talk • contribs) 15:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand you better. Now, before you do that, could you please provide some reliable sources that discuss the papers in question? Keep in mind that conference papers are not that regularly cited by other writers, especially since most conferences don't peer review them, the main exception being if they were published in the Conference Proceedings. We need some evidence that these papers are of interest to the mainstream scientific community; just because Santilli wrote them does not mean that we should devote any space to them. Academics of all types publish numerous papers and usually present at countless more conferences, and we don't routinely include details about all of them. Heck, we don't even usually list all conference papers a person has made (that's what CV's on university/institution websites are for). So before you go to all the effort to draft up those sections, let's first establish that they are "important". Qwyrxian (talk)15:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You can't test the foundation by editing here. Wikipedia doesn't have that sort of hierarchical structure. They don't control editing here. And I have no idea what this business of friends is about. And I endorse what Qwyrxian says above. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian (and Dougweller), sincere thanks the comments. Your points are sound and legit. I will do as suggested, i.e., identify and suggest main references in these comments prior to creating a new section in the article (which new section is suggested to be short in any case). However, I have to lament self-damaging abuses in the past, such as the removal in Santilli's article of a refereed paper by Prof. J. Dunning-Davies of the University of Hull, England, and others on grounds that "he is a friend of Santilli." But then most independent references in other articles must be eliminated to prevent violations of Wiki's rules. Also, allow me a slight divergence of views. Wiki correctly quotes important statements even when there is no refereed publication because the content in physics is more important than its conduit. Note, sorry!, from scientificethics(dot)org the invitation for Santilli to come to the USA because his studies on irreversibility were and are important for NASA during spaceship reentry, and that the Department of ""Energy"" invited Santilli when at Harvard to do the same because of evident need of irreversibility treatments for all energy releases. This national relevance alone, allow me that because true, is sufficient, in my view, for a short section. Its content is up to you and the other editors. Cheers and Happy Thanksgiving! Zkurko November 26, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkurko (talk • contribs) 17:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Any content added to the article will have to comply with Wikipedia's rules - which don't make exceptions on the basis that something was supposedly "important for NASA". If NASA considered it important cite a reliable source which says so. And no, scientificethics(dot)org isn't a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Zkurko/Santilli, your website is not a reliable source, and with the threats of lawsuits contained on it, we wouldn't dare touch it with a ten foot pole.

Zkurko/Santilli, why can't you even spell your sockpuppet's name consistently? Your account is Zkurko, yet you repeatedly manually sign both Zkurcko and Zkurko. Seriously, how many socks are you using now? This one needs to be blocked as well. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• The above disruptive editors have been blocked per this discussion. If any more suspected socks show up, please inform myself or another administrator and we'll get it taken care of. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not Zkurko. I offered to info(at)wikipedia(dot)org his real name and email but his block was maintained even though his message were quite decent, the only credible explanation being that the "administrators" did not like his promised addition of refereed publications, thus providing huge support for Scientific Ethics that, in my view, should have been avoided. Zkurko is now disgusted and wants totally out of this. Ruggero Maria Santilli basicresearch(at)i-b-r(dot)org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.125.25.14 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

I took the liberty of moving the paragraph on the HJ to the Biography section since it does not appear to fit under Hadronic Mechanics in my view. Sorry for starting a new section here but I do not want to be associated to the preceding exchanges. Aabrucadubraa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aabrucadubraa (talk • contribs) 16:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I too the liberty of completing in the HHO section of the article Refs. [28], [29], [30] because any doubt of their serious refereed nature is damaging to all. In any case, the same journal had been accepted as refereed in quotation [24] of Calo's views. Aabrucadubraa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aabrucadubraa (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Fringe Dubbing"

Dear Arthur Rubin, Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow, Samuel Thing. Gabbriele Veneziano and other known physics administrators of Wikipedia,

I have removed the "fringe" dubbing in the heading of the Santilli's article on the following grounds you should consider seriously:

1) The "fringe" dubbing is in violation of the basic rule of Wikipedia to provide factual information without advance judgments that must be left to the visitors;

2) The "fringe" dubbing is in violation of the second rule of Wikipedia to avoid discrimination. In fact, the dubbing is used for Santilli's theories but not for other theories supported by the administrators such as the conjectures of big bang, dark matter, expansion of space itself, and the like;

3) The "fringe" dubbing violates the third Wikipedia rule of avoiding repetitions. The article is full of statement to the effect that Santilli's theories are not accepted by the physics community at large. These statements should stay because true. However, the "fringe" dubbing in the top of all these repetitions shows a malignant intent whose implications should be pondered by the administrators;

4) The "fringe" dubbing was appropriate indeed fifteen years ago, but now Santilli's main theories (Magnecules, MagneHydrogen, IsoRedShift, IsoBlueShift, isodual theories, nuclear fusions without radiations, etc.) have been experimentally verified by independent scholars in refereed publications, thus causing evident credibility problems that Wikipedia administrators should appraise. Additionally, Santilli's theories have produced technologies currently developed by U. S. publicly traded companies (magnegas(dot)com, thunder-fusion(dot)com, and others and their foreign associates) following millions of dollars of investments both in USA and abroad whose dubbing as "fringe" is clearly self-damaging;

5) The last event that triggered this intervention (in the hope of preventing a predictable reaction by Scientific Ethics because damaging to all) was the immediate removal without any due process by the administrator of the article on Hubble's Law two days ago of my uploading of independent refereed publications on Santilli's invariant derivation of Hubble's law on grounds of being "fringe." This provides documentation on the existence at Wikipedia of an organized conspiracy by the Wikipedia administrators for their personal political agenda against due scientific process on Santilli's theories and against their industrial development of munch needed new technologies, including nuclear fusions without harmful radiations. Wikipedia administrators should ponder whether their documented decades of opposition to Santilli's studies is worth maintaining in this internet era where the control of science is impossible.

Respectfully yours, Aabrucadubraa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aabrucadubraa (talk • contribs) 14:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Simply put, you are wrong. Santilli is a fringe scientist, and all his ideas are not accepted by mainstream science, to the point that he needs to create his own journals to publish his ideas because he cannot get them published anywhere else. On the off chance that he manages to get through the cracks of peer review, like in the case of the HHO claims, he gets utterly scathing rebuttals such as "the author provides absolutely no scientific evidence that supports the existence of a new form of matter called "HHO gas"." [emphasis in original]. That Santilli is a fringe scientist is established by independant reliable sources.

Your understanding of Wikipiedia rules is also inaccurate. Wikipedia takes the point of view of the consensus of experts. If experts agree that something is black, Wikipedia says that something is black. If someone else think something is white, Wikipedia will not say "Something could be black or white, and this is up to the reader to decide" or "Something is gray, because some people think it's black, while others think it's white."

Until Santilli convinces the mainstream that his ideas are sound, Wikipedia will not side with him on those ideas. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Aabrucacadabraa, as someone who watches this page but who has only a fleeting grasp on the physics itself, could you please provide evidence for this claim: " but now Santilli's main theories (Magnecules, MagneHydrogen, IsoRedShift, IsoBlueShift, isodual theories, nuclear fusions without radiations, etc.) have been experimentally verified by independent scholars in refereed publications,"? What are the independent scholars who have verified Santilli's claims, what are the journals they have published in, what are their results, and what independent sources have commented on these claims that we might know that they are accepted in the scientific field? Qwyrxian (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)